Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

MightyMait writes "With my 40th birthday coming up, seeing this article makes me happy I have a good job (and a little wary of having to find another). From the article: '[T]he start-up ethos extols fresh ideas and young programmers willing to toil through the night. Chief executives in their 20s, led by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, are lionized, in part because of their youth. Many investors state bluntly that they prefer to see people under 40 in charge. Yet the youth worship undercuts another of Silicon Valley's cherished ideals: that anyone smart and driven can get ahead in what the industry likes to think of as an egalitarian culture. To many, it looks like simple age discrimination - and it's affecting people who wouldn't fit any normal definition of old. "I don't think in the outside world, outside tech, anyone in their 40s would think age discrimination was happening to them," says Cliff Palefsky, a San Francisco employment attorney who has fielded age-discrimination inquiries from people in their early 40s. But they feel it in the Bay Area, he said, and it's "100 percent due to the new, young, tech startup mindset."'"

Flash!!! In an amazing breakthrough Silicon Valley Biotech Leaders have engineered the Coding Embryo... it will program in the womb. Valley start-ups cheer at the creation of the new engineers and their walking talking life support systems.

You only get them in groups of 5. If you don't use them, you may get another 5 before they expire (potentially the same day). I had 20 at one point (you can't moderate and post in the same story, and I very rarely read the comments without posting, so I make a terrible moderator), but 5 is the number that is assigned at once. The algorithm is based on a number of things, karma is one and so is posting frequency (if I stop posting for 2 days, I'm pretty much guaranteed to have mod points when I return).

Olds like Steve Jobs and Jony Ive have no hope of creating products that young, hip consumers want. Only some grandpa with a calcified brain would have put money in their shit. That's why Apple has a sprightly young turk heading up their marketing.

The age bias is because kids are young and stupid and will happily waste 40, 60, even 80 hours a week slaving away for peanuts on the Next Big Thing in computers. There's something to be said though for people with a few years under their belt. For one, they know what failure looks like. For two, they don't go with the shiny things because they're shiny -- they understand business needs and can design things that'll last and can be scaled up. The dot com bubble happened precisely because everybody thought the dumb fresh-out-of-college kids had all the answers and we threw money at them like girls throw wet panties at singers on stage.

And we paid for it. Apparently though, we didn't learn anything from the experience. Like say, a modicum of business sense.

Used to be, you worked 50 hours a week and the company paid that off with security.

Today, you are expected to work 60+ hours a week, get divorced, have health issues, even die on the job (had multiple deaths in the current project so far : cancer, heart attacks, some among young people who shouldn't be having these problems) - as bad as building a big steel bridge or skyscraper).

Then at the end they lay you off and put infosys on support for the project.

There is no "paying your dues" any more.

---

Bonus points: If the replacements suck - the executive gets "fired" and gets 2 years severance- effectively 3 years pay for the last year's work.

---

I made it to the "finish" line- I never have to work again. Now, I'll only develop things that I want to develop (like I started because I loved programming). I'll never work on a holiday, or over night, or unpaid overtime again. I compiled and installed my first android program this week.

---

Main point, you young pups just need to be aware there is no loyalty, there is no payback. You'll be used like batteries and it's up to you to use the company right back. To leave in the middle of a project if they put you on a dead technology. Give them the loyalty they give you. If it makes financial sense do it. Otherwise walk away.

Got a fabulous company/manager? That could change tomorrow. I've seen it three times in my short career. New management can destroy the pleasure in a company within 60 days and then finish off the company in under 6 months and walk away rich while leaving nothing behind for the employees.

And when you find yourself working over 60 hours a week- that's WHEN you need to be looking most. It's always time to be looking unless there is a huge completion bonus (and just be aware the company will probably screw you out of 50-75% of the bonus).

---And for the record- they put a bunch of young hotshots on the last project I was involved with. It was (is) horrible. They missed requirements, they turned in specs which didn't meet the requirements, they wrote horribly inefficient code, they managed projects terribly. Some of them were walking around with black eyes from lack of sleep. And that exhaustion showed in everything they did and the enormously inexperienced snap decisions they made.

Kids are great for new technology-- and for small things. Enterprise level stuff and good project management requires experience. Oh the greatest thing was their decision to use only "happy path" testing. No negative testing. Ah the rewards of that decision just keep paying dividends.

Why don't executives like experienced hands? Because they say "no, it's not possible" instead of "yes, I'll kill myself to make it possible" even when it's clearly impossible.

If employer believes candidate A will do more work for less pay than candidate B, then hiring candidate A is a perfectly legitimate hiring decision and is hardly age "discrimination" just because candidate A is younger. If employer believes candidate A will do LESS work and require MORE pay than candidate B, but STILL hires candidate A because he is younger and the employer does not like old people, THAT is age discrimination.

If you ask me the biggest problem with the economy and business isn't republicans or democrats, it's that people whose best years and best ideas are behind them, but they want to squeeze the last drop of blood out and make sure every last cent is off the table (even at the expense of greater profit in 2-5 years with investment).

Close, but not quite. It's people who never had any "best years and best ideas" to begin with, but who do know one thing: how to "squeeze the last drop of blood out and make sure every last cent is off the table" by preying on the people who do have the good years and good ideas. And neither group is defined by age; if there are more older people in the former group, it's only because they've had longer to learn the tricks of effective parasitism.

I think that's as much horseshit as thinking 40 and under make an ideal company. If you ask me the biggest problem with the economy and business isn't republicans or democrats, it's that people whose best years and best ideas are behind them, but they want to squeeze the last drop of blood out and make sure every last cent is off the table (even at the expense of greater profit in 2-5 years with investment). If they can do so with 6 month initiatives and lots of processes and Jack Welchian business practices, they will (and believe me, they do). Investors are no doubt leery of older people who are too experienced.

In its last quarter, Apple made about 50 billions and achieved an increase of around 25% of its earnings. Yet the value of its stock dropped because analysts expected more. What kind of message do you think this situation sends to executive? Focus on long-term growth?

Everybody cries about programmed obsolescence and incompatible adapters and software assurance and all other quick-money-making schemes, yet they sell their f*cking stock when one of the most profitable companies in the world does not meet analysts predictions on the last quarter. It's easy to blame those evil executive or those crooked bankers but the truth is that their own job is on the line if they don't make the silly numbers a bunch of charlatans are pulling out of thin air. And just about anyone with a trading account or a 401(k) is complicit to this madness.

In its last quarter, Apple made about 50 billions and achieved an increase of around 25% of its earnings. Yet the value of its stock dropped because analysts expected more. What kind of message do you think this situation sends to executive?

If the executive is math literate, it sends the message that the street's valuation lead the harvesting of value.

For example, on an apple farm, one might survey the number of apples on the trees in August and predict an all-time bumper crop, but then the weather does som

If the executive is math literate, it sends the message that the street's valuation lead the harvesting of value.

These are the same "smart people" that currently have Amazon with a P/E 3,253. That is not a typo, the P/E is over 3k (to compare: Apple's P/E is 13.24, Google is 21.01)

So when's THAT harvest coming in? In the terms of your metaphor, it's like expecting the orchard will have a bumper crop, and that several dozen other solar systems with fertile planets will be found to grow on also.

In its last quarter, Apple made about 50 billions and achieved an increase of around 25% of its earnings. Yet the value of its stock dropped because analysts expected more. What kind of message do you think this situation sends to executive?

If the executive is math literate, it sends the message that the street's valuation lead the harvesting of value.

No, it sends the message that the market is hell-bent on speculation and that in a world where a company that pays dividends is accused of having "no imagination" the only way to please shareholders is to make the stock price go up no matter what. This leads to short-term plans and a plethoras of shallow business trends like "pivoting".

I hope you've got youth, because you're light on discernment.

Well I have enough discernment to see that you have no idea that being shrewd has nothing to do with when you buy a stock but rather on how much money you make with it - whic

In its last quarter, Apple made about 50 billions and achieved an increase of around 25% of its earnings. Yet the value of its stock dropped because analysts expected more. What kind of message do you think this situation sends to executive? Focus on long-term growth?

I'm pretty sure that you don't follow Apple stock that closely; I was an Apple employee for 8 years, and here's how Apple works: they make reasonable projections, and the street gets pissed at them for not forecasting higher. The stock goes down for a couple weeks, then slowly goes up to the per-prjection value, then goes past it. When it's time for the earnings call, Apple exceeds their projection. The street gets pissed off because they didn't exceed it by "enough". The stock goes down for a few weeks,

I kinda did the same thing, although I didn't get laid off. I got into a disagreement with the president of my then current company, and he asked me if I still wanted to work there. I stuttered for a second, and I said no. He was floored, since I had worked there for 15+ years, was the head of R&D and was fairly indispensable at the time (Noone is indispensable, but they were definitely hurting for a couple years after I left). I took some serious time off, and when I started actually looking for something to do, I found being a consultant changed a lot of things for me. No longer were people looking for the 20-somethings that would work 80-hours, they actually wanted someone who knew what they were doing, and would do it for them quickly (because all of a sudden now they have to pay by the hour). I can honestly say, I never want to go back. My clients are happy, and I'm happy. I'm no longer bitching about having to work 60-100 hour work weeks because my boss is unreasonable and I'm not getting paid for it. Now I actually DO get paid for it, and NO client of mine wants me to work over 40 hours a week because they don't want to pay me 150% of my normal rate. They are more than happy to delay whatever it was that they needed another week to save themselves a few bucks.

Whenever I hear these types of arguments I always think there must be some psychological term for this. That is, whenever someone has been deprived of some benefit, it is all too easy to get him to rally behind depriving others of the same.

Why should every business endeavor be a race to the bottom for everyone but the shareholders?

And good god do you really want the people who will do the job just because it's a job? Desperation breeds loyalty by necessity but it is not a very healthy state of mind. I guarantee the civil service job is anything but sexy and probably pays nothing more than a reasonable wage. These are the tradeoffs that, generally speaking, have emerged from the free market system.

Why should every business endeavor be a race to the bottom for everyone but the shareholders?

They aren't. Shareholders (through their management employees) have an incentive to treat skilled employees reasonably well, since it can take a long time to replace and retrain them.

As far as unskilled workers go... well, we've let in ten million Central and South American peasants to remove the tiny bit of bargaining power they had. Pretty much whenever the Democrats and Republicans act in collusion someone

The "shareholders" are not paying the slightest bit of attention to what management is doing, or who the hell the managers are.

You could only think this if you've never had experience in the industry. Big mutual funds are very much paying attention to who is on the management team, the numbers the company is putting up, and anything else that might eventually be reflected in the stock price. I worked at a fund company, and trust me, this is what they spend their time doing. They don't change their posi

Whenever I hear these types of arguments I always think there must be some psychological term for this. That is, whenever someone has been deprived of some benefit, it is all too easy to get him to rally behind depriving others of the same.

The term you're looking for is the Just-world hypothesis. Basically, it's the idea that good behaviors are rewarded and bad behaviors punished as a universal law of nature. So when someone is successful, it's not because of luck or chance, but because they deserved it. Likewise, if someone is suffering, they also deserve it. But it doesn't take modern psychology to figure this one out -- the greeks made a latin proverb out of it, which translated says "every misfortune is to be believed when directed against the unfortunate."

This belief enables and extends into other things, such as a blame the victim mentality, and things that follow from the phrase "I was just following orders." Similar studies have been done on personal responsibility and it was found that the more people that could help, the lower the likelihood is of anyone helping -- that is, a person's sense of guilt is divided by the number of people present. Beyond a certain threshold, nobody does anything. That's why you hear stories about how someone was murdered in the middle of rush hour, in the middle of the street, and nobody helped the victim or even called 911.

The asshat you were replying to simply has a larger than average dose of self-importance... a logical consequence of buying into the belief a bit, uhh, more than average. At least amongst the educated.

You know what's really wrong with this country? It's the people at the top fucking over what's left of the middle class. Money doesn't trickle down, it rises upward if regular people have money to spend. People are working longer, harder, and for less while their jobs are being outsourced and benefits are being slashed. The 1% is making money hand over fist and even though they're richer than they've been in the last 50+ years they still bitch and moan when it comes time to pay their fair share of taxes. If they don't like Clinton rates then we could always go back to Eisenhower rates.

I am sorry to say but it's folks like you that are responsible for the USA's [finacial] woes it finds itself in at this time.

People who say things like this, and actually believe them, aren't entirely responsible for our economic problems, but they're probably the worst offenders.

To make matters worse, your statements do not reflect an iota of sorrow for the tax paying ordinary American!

(a) Federal employees pay taxes like everyone else. Yes, their jobs are ultimately paid for by everyone's tax dollars (including their own) but it makes no difference to the person getting the paycheck.

(b) I'm sure he feels a great deal of sorrow for the people caught up in the rat race of private-sector employment, which is why he's taken the step of not being one of them any more. Your statement makes as much sense as saying to someone who's happy to have survived cancer, "Your statements do not reflect an iota of sorrow for the people whose tumors don't respond to chemotherapy!"

Those five weeks should be cut down to say two, and your salary shuld be reduced by at least 20%.

(a) Right. God forbid someone should have a reasonable vacation and benefits package instead of being expected to work himself half to death. Clearly the solution is to drag everyone down to the same miserable level.

(a) You have no idea what his salary is. Most likely, it's less than his private-sector counterparts make. That's one of the tradeoffs you make when you take a government job. Sorry if that doesn't jibe with your ideology.

I can still find folks willing to do your job under such conditions.

Ah, got it. You're one of the parasites [slashdot.org], then. See my first line, above.

You're quite correct, I do make less that the "private sector". A lot less.

People have this strange idea that most Federal workers are making "bank" and that just isn't so. I also work my ass of to support the mission of the agency I work for (the Air Force) for the benefit of all Americans. When you work for the government, you work for the People.

About my vacation. I said 5 weeks, but I started out with less than that. All the same, the United States is one of the FEW civilized countries in the world where most worker bees get so little vacation time, an almost INHUMAN 2 weeks?

Seriously, what can you do in 2 fucking weeks?

Yes, I know that all the right-wing Tea Baggers thing government workers should be happy with $10 an hour and 2 weeks a year, but you know what? They're "Tea Baggers" which mean they are also morons.

No. When you work for the government, you work against the people; you are a parasite upon the people.

Very rarely it is so. Very often, the gov provides services much cheaper than industry, in a more timely and efficient manner, and with higher quality. Health care is an example (not in the US, but just look over the pond).

During the dotcom bubble, I was at the top end of the age range (35-ish) that was fashionable and working for a US TLA as a general-purpose sysadmin greybeard in an all-Unix shop. I networked more than most and corresponded with lots of folks both in govt and the private sector. I don't know why I did it because I loved my work and wasn't looking for anything new but I did like to keep up and keep in touch with lots of folks. Also, it didn't hurt and sometimes greatly amused me that the part of my email address just to the left of the ".gov" tended to get my emails read.

During those years I turned down a number of job offers. I don't remember specifically; some were informal "let's talk" and others were "I'll pay you $X to come work for us". But I distinctly remember several offers that would have as much as quadrupled my pay (which would have put me at double the going rate since, as a fed, I was already being paid only about half what the average private sector employee in my position received.)

I never bit. Of those companies, none survive today. All of them wanted me to trade my 40-hour work week with time-and-a-half for overtime for positions where I essentially worked 24 hours a day, perhaps 12 at the office and the rest of the time wearing a pager. None offered more than a couple of holidays. None offered sick or vacation time that was more than a farce. The pay, though, would have been great if I was willing to step into the hamster wheel and start running.

So maybe I'm a doddering old fool. Maybe I was unambitious. All I know is that now I'm retired. My retirement check covers my expenses plus a little...and that's after deductions for all taxes, decent health insurance, very good life insurance, and fairly good long-term care insurance. It's not lounging on a yacht with supermodels but I'm not afraid of being three paychecks from living in my car, either.

Folks who spit on public-sector employees simply don't understand. I often wonder if it's worth the (usually wasted) effort I sometime put towards trying to help them see things from a broader perspective.

Interestingly 5 weeks vacation is the legal minimum in the UK and most of the EU, plus public holidays. We also give workers to right to refuse to work more than 48 hours a week with no penalty (including loss of promotion).

I don't people in the US realize just how poor working conditions and worker protections are there.

I am sorry to say but it's folks like you that are responsible for the USA's [finacial] woes it finds itself in at this time.

To make matters worse, your statements do not reflect an iota of sorrow for the tax paying ordinary American!

Those five weeks should be cut down to say two, and your salary shuld be reduced by at least 20%.

Funny how in many other countries, people start with 5 weeks of paid vacation and 35 hour weeks, and still have higher productivity than here in the USA.

Methinks there is something else wrong. Like zapping away the joy and pride of work by attempting to squeeze all you can get out of your workers. I wouldn't be surprised if a lesser amount of Americans like doing their job than in any other Western country. Hint: This isn't the fault of the workers.

Exactly. Studies have showed that after 8 hours of work our production suffers massively, after a while you start to get into negative production because you have to keep fixing the mistakes you made due to exhaustion.

And why is having robots do the grunt work bad?
Why not automate the hell out of everything and give everyone a twenty hour work week and ten weeks of vacation each year.?
More time off means more recreational activities, more holidays, economic boom for all the service sectors. Lower stress means reduced health care costs and probably just an all round happier society.
The average hunter-gatherer worked about five or ten hours a week to survive. With all our advances, it now takes 60 hours a week? That's bullshit.

I am sorry to say but it's folks like you that are responsible for the USA's [finacial] woes it finds itself in at this time.

The USA doesn't have any financial woes. When a Democrat is president everyone wrings their hands about public debt, but when a Republican is president everyone wants to cut taxes and go on a spending spree. Even now, nothing is as important as balancing the budget -- except prolonging the Bush tax cuts. Letting those expire would go a long way toward fixing the "problem", but the deficit hawks won't even consider it.

This is just disaster capitalism brought home to roost. Squeeze the middle and working c

It's miserable pukes like you that are clueless and responsible for the USA's financial woes. A happy, well rested employee is more productive and more creative than a miserable, tired, and heartened employee. An extra week of vacation really only translates out to a 2% bonus, and helps keep them refreshed and will keep them more productive, happy, and less likely to burn out.

Whoa now, some of those 40 year old techies actually have enough qualifications to fit the impossible requests on job requirements. If we hire them, we can't get more H1Bs and complain to congress there aren't enough skilled workers in the US despite a depressed economy where jobs are hard to come by.

Suing an employer for age discrimination is very difficult. Proving it in a court of law is almost impossible. Worse, a former head of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sat on some 20,000 age discrimination complaints until the statute of limitations expired. That person is now a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court -- Clarence Thomas.

When seeking a job, however, there are things you can do on your own to reduce the likelihood of age discrimination. In your resume (electronic or hardcopy), omit any experience more than 10-12 years old. While listing schools attended and degrees earned, omit the years. Both men and women should use hair dye to "cover the gray", but men should not hide their baldness. (Young men are often bald by choice; but a comb-over, weave, or toupee too easily indicates an older man.)

No good software engineer need be unemployed. There is just too much work.

I started coding professionally in 1970 and I'm still coding. Not a single day of unemployment so far, and I don't expect one anytime soon. Just keep up your skills and maintain a network of current and former coworkers, just in case. And do good work so people want to keep you around.

That may be true, but that's not what the article is talking about. The article is talking about investors not wanting to invest in older CEOs.

This is interesting because although older software engineers are often the victims of age discrimination, it's usually the other way around for execs. The stereotype is that good software engineers are all young and good executives are all older (and therefore experienced). Rather than do away with this stereotype, the angel investors have simply reversed it - they seem to think that all good software executives must be younger (and therefore more dedicated and visionary).

And this is a secret how?I developed grey hair in my early twenties.Depending on whether I've dyed it back to its original color, the experience of age bias is universal, whether tech firm, fellow parents, or getting carded for liquor.

Most of the successful people I know got that way to because they took a risk they were largely unaware of. These people were either psychopathic or young, both stupid. For every one of them, I'm sure there are thousands who suffered the consequences.

The funny thing I've found throughout my is that companies run and inevitably staffed by younger people tend to be a mess. Everything is done inefficiently, emotions affect decisions and everyone is far too comfortable working excessively long hours. They're definitely a lot more in tune with the latest trends, but they're also a lot more likely to waste their time on unproductive nonsense.

Companies run by an older group tend to be far more stable and productive. Ironically, you're also a lot more likely to be appreciated. The challenge, however, is not getting stuck somewhere that's stagnated.

On the employee side, however, if you want job security in the long term you'd better be considering management or a very special niche for yourself.

"I don't think in the outside world, outside tech, anyone in their 40s would think age discrimination was happening to them," says Cliff Palefsky

I love this, only a person who can't remember their youth would make such a ridiculous statement. Age discrimination is ever-present, but tech is one of the few areas where it works in reverse. Remember not being able to vote or drink or smoke or drive or choose where you wanted to live or go to school? Yeah... no age discrimination.

Uhh... are you saying that it's discriminatory to not allow children to vote and drive? I'm guessing you must be a kid, probably an older one, and pissed about your lack of rights.

Sorry, but you aren't Athena. You don't spring out fully formed and ready to go. It takes a long time for the brain to fully develop, and teenagers just aren't done yet. Slowly easing them into responsibility is the right thing to do. That's not discrimination, unless you're gonna try to argue semantics and pretend that "disc

The tech world is different. Different because it's based not on hard labour, but on making clear and correct decisions. Be it programming, analysis, or project management, in this world the real effort isn't in the work; it's in deciding what work should be done.

The actual work -- the long hours, the youth-oriented efforts discussed in the post -- is the blue-collar work. It's the low-wage, low-responsibilty, low-risk work of this industry. Of course it's best-suited to the young.

It's not age discrimination to say that any 40 year-old in this industry should know how to make decisions without being told what to do. It's not age discrimination to say that any 40 year-old in this industry should be ready and willing to take responsibility for their own decisions. It's not age discrimination to say that any 40 year-old in this industry should want to be accountable for their work and take the financial risks associated with that work.

What makes this industry different is that the lowly bottom-rung intern programmer has a direct path through project management into senior management right from the start. Unlike most other industry, there's no "management track". Everyone's in the management track. That intern should become a team programmer, then a senior programmer, then a team leader, then a senior team leader, then a team manager, then a senior manager, and then should be acquiring and selling to their own (or partially own) clients.

So given a 40 year-old, with more than 5 years of experience in the industry, who isn't in a management role, it's not age discrimination to say that the person isn't interested in becoming anything more than they already are. And given a employee who isn't interested in moving up, it's not age discrimination to prefer an employee who does.

This industry is all about those willing to spend an absurd amount of time focusing on a ridiculously specific task, and those willing to risk their finances on the success and viability of their own decisions. If you aren't willing to work through the night routinely, and you aren't willing to put your own money on the line, then there are plenty of other industries for you.

Believe it or not, this industry is not about four decades of being told what to do. It's about 2 years of being told, 2 years of being taught, 2 years of being encouraged, and if you don't get it by then, 2 years of finding someone else. As an employer, I'm not interested in the 40 year-old that I need to supervise. I'm not interested in risking my money on the reliability of that 40 year-old. And I'm not interested in paying such an employee more than I would to someone I'm expecting to grow.

So, as always, if you don't like the employment options available to you, start your own business and do it however you like.

Start a business that only hires 40 year-olds. That's perfectly fine too. It can be the first question in your interview. It can be the only question in your interview. Make it work your way. Stop complaining when others do it their way. That's exactly the point. Either make decisions, or do what you're told. And sometimes, what you're told is that you simply aren't good enough. So when that time comes, stand up and prove otherwise with your own business. Some of us have.

Urgh. A lot of assumptions you made about intern programmers moving up, etc. Is that the speech you give to someone who you just hired? Promising them management within 5 years? There are probably 10 programmers all being promised that management position, but only one will get it. The ones that don't make it you say they lack motivation and fire them. Of course, it's never the manager's fault, right?

I didn't say any of that. You're looking at intention and motivation, and probably a dozen other subjective and interpreted metrics. I don't care about any of those. I care about what actually happens. Yes out of 10 programmers only one will get it. And sure, it'll be management's "fault" most of the time. But it doesn't matter why. It only matters that.

I'm not looking for any random manager. Nor for any random programmer. I'm looking for the programmer that fits the management. I choose to base the programmers on the management instead of the other way around because I pay the management more than I pay the programmers, and the management is more loyal to me than are the programmers.

That's my choice. As a great comedian is known to say: they're my rules, I make them up.

Again, and as always, if the programmer doesn't like my rules, they are certainly capable of leaving and making their own rules. That's EXACTLY what I did.

I didn't like the way my employer divided projects. So I found a new employer. I didn't like the way that employer programmed their platform (no database). They wouldn't let me improve things. So I found a new employer. I didn't like the way that employer didn't let me know what was happening with the clients. So I started my own company and did things my own way.

No surprise, I lost one not-so-great employee who didn't like my rigidity with procedures (I hate version control). I lost another perfectly decent employee who didn't like my lack of interest in major platform upgrades (ironically, I didn't see that one coming from my employee experience). And I lost a really good partner because he didn't like my focus on tedious efforts over challenging efforts.

Again, if you want something done your way, you get to risk your own money on it. If you expect to get paid whether or not the client pays the invoice, then you just plain don't get to have the last word on anything. It's that simple. And when you work for someone whose entire life, family, car, house, pension, vacation, and retirement are all wrapped up in the success of the business, then you get to have no word on anything. You get to advise, you get to suggest, and you get to get over-ruled by someone willing to put everything on the line while you have nothing to lose.

Again, risk it all, and you'll get to decide what happens -- whether you like it or not. But you don't get to say how someone else risks their money. You aren't risking yours. That makes you a dependent. That makes you a child. That makes you gutless -- and I mean that literally, not offensively. That's all fine. But that's the truth. If it's what you want, more power to you. Some people don't want that. Don't bother asking those people for money.

lets just cut to the chase and call it what it is. The inexperienced getting taken advantage of. For every facebook there are hundreds of failures and I doubt that a venture capital firm would be so eager to invest in these if they had no way to extract a profit from them. Older also means more savy.

Everybody at my place is over 30, mostly over 40, and we have several over 70. A lot of people come here after 'retirement' because they just go stir crazy sitting at home and not solving problems.

We have a hardcore interview on real world problem solving skills and experience (not Google or MS gotcha brain teasers) and it's very easy to get a feel for how internally motivated someone is. We hire the good people even though they cost a lot more than the ones right out of college. But a good experienced guy can get twice the work done with half the effort/time, because we've already made all the mistakes - and then twice that at least if nobody else on the team is dragging them down. Another 2x if management isn't! It's a bargain if you look at it like that.

Silicon Valley works on the model of 'hire newbies and burn through their endless energy for cheap while we spend the VC money on goodies' so what the story says isn't wrong. But I'd like to let experienced middle-aged people who really feel driven to engineer know that you can always get a good job at a decent small to mid-sized company - the job market there is huge. I get at least a couple job inquiries every month, and they know how old I am.

It's the driven part that counts - I get a high off solving problems and making cool useful stuff, and so do the other people here. I've never thumbs downed a candidate who had decent skills and just couldn't stop talking about the cool things s/he'd done. But we can all smell a stagnant large company 'lifer' when s/he walks in the door. If you've got the drive, don't let yourself get trapped, even if 'it's a job!'

I have been in software for 32 years professionally. Whether there is age discrimination or not it is certainly not evenly distributed across all employers. It is not easy to find employees and co-workers who are adept at software. Even merely adequate software engineers can be elusive to find. So many companies realize that discrimination on any basis is not something they can afford. I am 58 now and still going strong. There is no way I experienced any age discrimination in my 40s. And there are several people at my current small company (80 people or so) who are older than I.

Employment is overrated.I quit my job at age 40, and went independent.I never made so much money in my life, working so few hours.If you have the skills, just start your own enterprise, and show those young whippersnappers how old school engineers kick ass.The time is perfect for it: developers can market their produce directly to consumers via app stores.

I see a lot of positions open for people with years of experience in various technologies and a 20 year old isn't going to have that. I'm in my 40s and am contacted almost weekly about open positions both at startups and established companies. Experience is everything, that, and networking among former colleagues. At my company we have a number of positions open. We don't care much about age, we care about experience and skill. A programmer who has been around the block a few times will tend to write better more maintainable code. We've been looking for another experienced toolchain engineer (GCC, etc.) for some time now, for example, but they're hard to come by.

I'm over 40 and I honestly have not seen any age discrimination in IT. Maybe it's just the circles I travel in but often age is associated with experience and in many fields it's an asset not a liability. I have seen one or two older people get let go but honestly their skills were not up to what they should be - age had nothing to do with it. Sometimes people get some skills early in their career and make some headway and then just sort of settle in and stop learning. You can ride those skills for a while but eventually the industry moves on and, if you're not careful, you will get left behind. Sadly, by the time you figure it out it might be too late.

Age becomes a crutch, an excuse. In IT, like in many other professions, it's crucial to keep your skills relevant and up to date. Maybe your employer will train you, maybe you have to do it yourself. Either way, you've got to find a way to stay on top of the new developments.

After the first failed performance review that should have been a clear sign that it's time to step it up. If that's me I'm asking my manager what do I need to do to improve? Get a plan together and work towards it. Set some short term goals.

If it really truly is age related discrimination then that's also a clear sign - to get your ass out of there. Go work for someone that appreciates your skills. Better yet, go into contracting. You'll make more money, you'll work on stuff you enjoy, and you'll be hired for what you know and your experience is seen as a positive thing.

As a 50+ year old still earning good money at an IT company, I can say that yes, there is age discrimination, but yes, you can and SHOULD be able to work around it.
The biggest problem that I see with fellow 50+ year olds is that they still want to be doing the job they signed up for when they were 22. Sorry, but if you are making a lot more money than you were when you were 20, then you should be doing a lot more. I keep seeing 50 year olds with resumes that brag about coding in Java or PHP. I'm sorry, but at your age and with that many years of experience behind you, you should be doing a lot more than coding. You should be leading, setting direction, defining architecture, setting the ground rules for the younger generation to avoid the mistakes that 20 year olds make.
If you want an IT job at 50+, you need to show that you can do MORE than the 20 year old, not as much as the 20 year old.

I'm seeing a lot of people complaining that they're not being given opportunities because they're "too old".

That's very large pool of calm, collected, experienced professionals who've been through the trenches, and already know all the products, systems and software that currently run the world, and will probably *continue* running the world for at least a decade.

So why not literally pool together and form a company?

"At Silver & Steel, we specialize in providing you with experienced industry professionals that don't make youthful mistakes that can cost you millions in lost profits or corrupted databases. Our team of proven operators can walk into your legacy environment and take full command of any situation without breaking a sweat and bring your systems back up to full operational capacity in short order. We don't make theories, we give answers.

When you can afford to spend money on chasing your dreams, go for youth and enthusiasm.

In Silicon valley, when you reached the age of 40 you supposed to have at least 50 millions dollars under you name...

Right.

Just a small piece of information that might prove relevant to your argument here.

The year is 2012, not 1999.

If you are 40 and still looking for opportunities in the Valley, it isn't because you're trying to figure out if the $80,000 signing bonus is worth more than the beach condo in the summer they're offering. It's probably because you're broke and have been unemployed for 6 months, and are willing to take any job just to stay in the tech field..

Not sure if you are implying that people "looking for opportunities" are unemployed in a desperate market, or that 40 year olds can't get a job in SV, but either way it's complete bullshit. The demand so far outstrips the supply right now in the Valley it's painful.

Painful because of how many interviews it takes to find anyone decent - but if you are a good engineer who works well with others many companies do not in fact give a shit about your age. Facebook and the other social media companies/startups are still a small fraction of the Bay Area employers.

The role that people 40 and above play in Silicon Valley is that of the Angel Investor.

Nonsense.

They post one of these every month or so. Maybe my perspective is off because I've worked more with Fortune 50 companies there, but I've never seen a real life age bias out there. Intel, for example, when I was there, hired a few really talented people in their 40's as contractors. So did HP, when I was there. In fact, most everywhere I went, there were at least a few 40ish or over 40 people working hard on project work. Same with the Microsoft related entities. Getting an orange badge is easy if you're smart enough to get through the interview. I haven't worked for Facebook, but I would assume, based on what I've seen that it's the same there, too.

Then again, I do my best never to work for startups. My wife doesn't like the horrible instability it brings.

I think, as a general rule, there are more kids that are scared of one day becoming totally obsolete on Slashdot, than there are working professionally in the Valley. When age is an issue, it's usually mainly their issue. Not really anyone else's. Experience in production counts. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit.

I look towards 40 as an age where I hope to just be getting started. The jobs that exist for the young all-nighter guy amount to being someone's bitch. Personally, I don't like to be anyone's bitch. I prefer to produce work that I am proud of. Alas, that's not always the case, since there are plenty of "I'm smart and I have a bunch of someone else's money and I need to be a part of everything because I'm the badass" type folks out there. Fortunately for me, this creates a nice niche where I get to clean up where others generally fail due to this approach.

I'll admit I've never worked in the valley (I've always lived and worked in the UK) but where I've encountered cries of ageism it's always been strongly correlated with incompetence or laziness.

Like the British tradesman who likes to knock off early, and do a shit job complaining about Polish immigrants taking his work when they do so because they work twice as hard and do a much better job, it's simply an excuse used by who are too lazy to compete in the labour market and want an easy ride handed to them.

You're full of shit, and just looking to stroke your own ego. You aren't Mark Zuckerburg. You aren't Steve Jobs. Nothing wrong with that, most people aren't.

Most people around here work for companies; they don't own them. That's practically tautological. At my company, the vast majority of engineers are over forty. Many, perhaps even most, are millionaires, but only just. That'll happen when you make six figures for most of your life and are competent at math. But the notion that everyone over 40 either has tens of millions or is a failure is total bunk. Just something you say to make yourself seem cool.

I was fired from my job because I'm 50+ and failed several performance reviews. Would they have fired somebody younger in my position? Or made him on management track? Rhetorical.

You were fired because you failed at doing your job, hence failing serveral performance reviews. You were NOT doing you job decent enough. Age has nothing to do with it, so quit making excuses because you were lazy at work.

Exactly! I've been canned when I had a piece of shit log management system thrust upon me. I tried warning management but they didn't want to hear it. So now they'll lose about $20 million in business. Ha ha ha ha!

Don't know anything about the GP, but I do agree that his posts on this thread don't sound like they came from a mature adult. Having said that I'm over 50 with 3 grand-kids, family life takes up a lot less time than when the kids were at home. Yes I am slower than I used to be, some of that may be due to dead or dying neurons, but I like to think it's because I have accumulated a long list of answers to the proverbial question; "What could possibly go wrong?"

From the employers POV there are two main reasons to hire old farts like me.....
1. More industry experience.
2. More life experience.

Speaking from my own experience, Once the kids leave home the financial pressures dissipate, even if you have no kids your mortgage is now what your rent was 20yrs ago. I was a middle manager for a few years in the 90's, herding cats is a thankless job and I don't want to go back. I would much rather get slightly less pay, spend my work time training my future boss and go home at 5pm. It's hard to explain that to young people who's only measure of success are the rungs on the corporate ladder and the digits on their paycheck. It's even harder to explain why some of my co-workers still turn up every morning even though they are in a financial position that would allow them to comfortably retire.

As for Zuck and the other wizz-kids, they didn't get where they are by working for a boss, they got there by selling new ideas to a new generation. The keys to that kind of success are; the right place, and the right time.

Disclaimer: Age != Maturity. I'm also fortunate enough to work as a developer for a Japanese multinational, they have an entirely different POV wrt to age and loyalty.

Pardon me for injecting myself, but, I have a lamp with a new reality bulb in it.Anyone who's been on the job for more than a decade, actually in the middle of it, not just some office troll, knows better than the assertions placed in this topic. Just like sex, young guys are eager and fast and go all night. Problematically, they make huge mistakes, slack off on details, bother the "old" guys for help and generally haven't grown a full set of work ethics yet, leaving and unsatisfactory performance behind in the long run.Logically, you can pay a young man to work like a demon for a week or someone with experience for a few days to do the same job and no guarantee the young guys quality is up to snuff. Usually not, but it looks good to investors to see a fury of motion. No one notices quiet consideration, till the product is complete.
As for investors who have listened to consultants, councillors and salesmen what can I say, consultants and their ilk are usually just grifters who will say anything that sounds "truthy" in exchange for far too much money. Having failed to make the MENSA roles and being relegated to merely the top 4%, sadly I still see MOST people as completely illogical morons, but it does explain the role of investors in this scenario perfectly. I suppose that's why investing is a gamble when you don't have the processing power to assess potential for yourself and rely on"carnies" to do your thinking for you.
But then, I am far too clever to have gotten myself into an IT career to begin with....

Plus about a million. I was a manager, and had been told to alter reviews to manage out people. I complained loudly that it wasn't true, but in the end they forced the hand. I got off the management train at that point, and I am happy to be where I am today.

You were fired because you failed at doing your job, hence failing serveral performance reviews. You were NOT doing you job decent enough. Age has nothing to do with it, so quit making excuses because you were lazy at work.

LOL. I've seen all sides of this situation, and let me tell you, there is always a way to get rid of people. It's called "managing them out". Read Corporate Confidential for a primer if you are really this clueless.

I don't know about the specifics of the GP, but consider this: if senior management wanted to get rid of him for being 50+ and "expensive" compared to cheaper younger employees (and not get sued for obvious age bias) all they have to do is come up with a crap or impossible project he cannot succeed in. Or give him something they actually need, but starve it of resources - a team of 10 is needed but he gets 2, including himself. Then put in enough of a paper trail to cover their ass (establish a lengthy history of "failed" performance reviews) to ward off legal action, and poof, he's gone.

Again, if you are so naive as to think everyone let go is 100% responsible for it, well let's just say you must be quite young and stupid yourself.

In states with "at will" employment, you don't even need to go to that much trouble. The older a employee is, the more care needs to be taken to establish a paper trail justification (just in case), but for a non-contracted 39-year-old ("too young" to be a victim according to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act), an employer can just perp-walk them out of the building, with no reason given. (Guess how I know this.)

Don't be naive. It's pretty easy for management to manufacture a reason to terminate 'for cause', especially in an at will state. While it's certainly possible that the performance reviews were legit and the person was terminated because they weren't great at their job, don't automatically assume that just because some manager said their performance was below par, that's fact.
I've had a few run ins with managers over the years who torpedoed my reviews for questionable reasons. The most memorable being the one who cited me for a lack of professionalism. Apparently, telling a manager they're wrong (privately, and very very conscientious of word choice, context, and tone) is unprofessional.
This is why I refuse to work for little tin gods. The second I find out my direct manager is of that vein, I'm either seeking a transfer or another employer. My discretion and ability at choosing who to work for has gotten much better with iteration.

They do. Check out the Intel Corporation sometime... most of the folks I worked with in my department had grey beards, grey hair, and were unashamed to show their age.

It wasn't a question of how many hours you cranked out per week, but how much of the project load you could devour before deadlines passed. The older devs were damned quick and had way low bug rates, and the older EE's were more readily able to catch potential screw-ups before they became actual ones.